The proof is in the pudding. You can't find it if you won't open it up.


I am sure there're reasons to fund the LHC, and the result could introduce more profitable ways of doing things that could be related to space travel for future colonization of other planets. This is just my theory, but only the people who fund the project would really know what they want and could do with the data and discovery. I do believe space travel is the biggest reward, to travel faster than light.

If the LHC succeeds, then more money would pour in for faster than light space travel technology/research and this means colonizing other planets, to rape their resources, of course.

There is no reason to fund anything just out of curiosity unless you can reap benefit from the research, whether financial or other types of gain that are material or could be a source to achieve other material gains.

Yes, I do find that you waste my time because there's not much to be learned from you at all, honestly. You think from a one track mind, not much to learn from your perspective.

Actually I'll admit it, I have been ignoring your stuffs about the financial conspiracies. It would be much easier for you, if I had a more 'open mind' and I accepted your assumptions. Problem is, you've not shown any of your claims are true to for me to be even able to take a step into discussing the thing you want to talk about.

It's like accusing me in not having an open mind about the idea of a fairy godmother, when you've not shown that the statement that fairies exist is even true yet.

Show proof of your claims, and we can discuss, but if you continue saying your claims are true a priori without any proof, there's no point in any discussion, because I could prove anything I want to if I took some set of assumptions under which my claims were automatically true. The key is to show your assumptions are true or plausible enough, and you have not met that test yet.

So show me the proof, or show me the pudding and I'll look for the proof myself, because you've not shown any proof, or the pudding, except for the claim that it exists, when the evidence you show has not been strong enough to support your claims.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 07:05 PM

Interesting... we can have mini-chat war on Overpopulation topic...
Imagine this brings to the real world, this mean war is unavoidable...

Anyhow, back to the topic...
We definitely need advance technology to bring us to another era to resolve the overpopulation issue... Currently, we are using suppression approach, and morality is against to kill a human for the sake of population control.

Just look at cow, once the grass is eaten, they have to migrate to another place that have grasses. Or else the cow will die from hunger.
This analogy applies the same to human.

Can we afford to buy a bottle of milk that cost RM 500 on our current salary standards? The basic answer is NO.
Therefore, without technology to bring us to another era, then it's sad to see that war is the solution...

Food will become scarce... therefore we need genetically modified food to grow faster to cope with the population..
Clone cow is already in production in US to cope with the demand..

Accommodation can be resolve by technology by building taller building, underground land, reclaimation land, and etc

Transportation can be resolve by technology by using the internet to buy stuff, better highways with toll , faster car/train to move ppl faster

Cloths... hehehe.. seems the modern era people are wearing less and less...

Here's a different outlook:-

In Japan the population decline has caused worry for future generations to sustain their productivity output and therefore they are heavily investing in machinery to overcome the population issue.

Regarding the food matter, if everyone became vegetarian and therefore the need to keep all the livestock to sustain mankind becomes relatively easier. I'd imagine if the 10kg of grain to obtain 1 kg of meat is consumed instead, it would be able to feed many more people.

One other thing to note is that it's not the fact that there isn't enough food, but people are wasting them without thinking twice. Have a look at the supermarkets, restaurants, and coffee shops. People waste food!

i think the major cause of overpopulation is being caused by fossil fuel.

fossil fuels made the industrial revolution possible hence farming and food production had since became more and more efficient.

according to one guy in the documentary "the 11th hour", the actual human population that earth can sustain is less than 1 billion if we rely on the daily sunlight (plants, and everything). what we are doing now is actually tapping on ancient sunlights (ancient plants and animals which has become fossil fuels) to enhance our food production and thus leading to fossil fuel addiction.

can you imagine that back in the 60s, our population was only 3 billion. i took us just 40 years to double ourselves. what happened in those 40 years was the introduction of hypermarkets. with the introduction of hypermarkets, food can be distributed much more readily to the population. so there are no worries when it comes to food and hence there are no any worries for the human population to continue growing.

the nightmare will come when alternative forms of energies are not found if fossil fuels are depleted in the future. without fossil fuels, combine harvesters cant work and trucks that transport food cant work. this will force them farmers to use traditional farming techniques which are not as productive as the modern ones. this will lead to a shortage of food and many might die because of a massive famine.

thats why i'm not a big fan of using my own tupperware for take aways and all those stuffs because i dont think it would help much. the only solution to save the earth is to reduce ourselves i think.

true, reduction is the only solution if there is no technology evolution... war, natural disaster, pandemic disease, abortion/suppression approach

Say, if technology advancement have improved tremendously, we may live on sea, sky, earth's orbit.... and soon, to new planet

Lazy to read all post.. But just refer to any population of any species.. They have to kind of increments.. And i am not sure what both were call alde.. But I am sure humans is the second one sumthing like the 'rapid increment and ending will burst and extict one'.. Left back will have a few fella on earth only..

in nature, natural predators control the population of a species together with available resources.

since man do not have natural predators, the only factor that control human population is resources.

important resources are land, food, fresh water and energy.
when these resource is very limited, there will be competition over it, resulting in wars and increase in price for the resource. this will control the human population. this is the situation we see in some countries in which there is no growth or sometimes negative growth of population.

i believe what we need now is not radical methods of population control. we need to change our method of producing goods to be more sustainable and more efficient so there is less or no damage to the environment.

the right to propagate is part of human rights. the ethical way is not to impose a regulation that forces people to not propagate, but instead to have them make a conscious choice instead. there is where education comes in. when this doesnt work and governing bodies start imposing a restriction, this is where the issue steps into the grey area. as with all other controversial topics, this has 2 sides to it too with plausible stands on both sides.

the irony of our survival in this planet is to breed, and therefore to keep our bloodline grow and bloom, yet this is the ultimate downfall to mankind.

the more we populate, the more we consume. more we consume, the faster we drain the natural resources that upkeep the wellbeing of this planet. funny how things work.

and on a macro scale, its rather clear that, rather crudely, the dumber kind would die first in line. as an analogy, a kid shouldnt be told not to cross the road without observing the traffic. smart ones would observe, and cross the road safely to further grow up and inherit his good genes to his offspring. dumber ones might just run into a car and die, and therefore his incompetant traits are off the pool of future generations.

To be more precise, there isn't an overpopulation problem at all. The only problem occurs when you want to fit people into the most popular cities and metropolises.

watch a documentary recently.... imagine this... human habitat VS natural ecosystem...

explore and exploit VS preservation....

which win?



when living is good and easy, people will multiply....

reminds me of agent smith in The Matrix... he said: you humans are like a plague... virus... you just keep multiply and multiply and multiply and exploit and used up everything untill nothing is left"

the movei 10,000BC also delivers such message

i wouldn't believe the world is overpopulating. the replacement ratio is 2.1, while in most developed countries it's way below it.

you'll notice a couple countries with an aging population. numbers will stagnate soon enough (not in this decade)

nahh
i think i live in a big city n see many PATI soo thats why u think its over population